In Conversation with Mark Blyth: George Bernard Shaw - Theater, Economics and Social Justice 

friedman argued it was the signal level into the encoder, not the microphone

OR, you could just up the volume on your device.

He is a gifted educator and a "no shit sherlock" master of what should have been obvious long before the GFC. The best thing about him though is he talks plain truth that's relatively easy to comprehend to the kind of power that pathologically lies and acts like it's unaware of the deceit it's selling. He's like the Dr Jordan Peterson of economics, without the cult like, unquestioning devotion of his followers, or the massive patreon capital accumulation from Christian prosperity evangelicals that crave academic respectability where it absolutely doesn't belong. That he's found an audience by claiming your freedom is under threat from transgender activists, whom you've got to say are probably suffering from a kind of post traumatic stress disorder from being the living embodiment of everything the Christian right's psychopathy gets hyper about, is 100% a slippery slope fallacy going to war against a traumatised minority that makes up little more than 0.1% of the population. Meanwhile, the top 0.1% of income earners are taking in all the new income generated globally and a clueless fake billionaire has 19 aircraft carriers, the nuclear codes, and a million triggers that could easily devolve into a global stupid of armageddon proportions, and no one wants to take it seriously. The "I'm alright jack, go fuck yourself" ethos of "what's mine is mine" selfish psychopathy is going to be the end of us. If not nukes, it'll be climate change, and it'll be the right that makes this probable, rather than merely possible.

Peterson is a fraud and Mark would shudder at being compared to such a dishonest academic.

gazza1001555 i defnietly see that

He used to do standup apparently

Horrible audio...

I had to put in some good earphones, worked well.

My amp is turned up so high that when windows beeps it blows out my ear drums.

I love this talk and find it frustrating that it is practically inaudible. Doesn't seem that the Fels staff is interested in posting a version with improved sound, so I put the time and created one myself. Here's the link of this same talk with fixed sound: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Wu5tOTcrlwQ.html

I always turn the basic computer volume from the default half mark to full and use whatever program is being used for the playing. The volume is fine on my pc

Here's the link of this same talk with fixed sound: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Wu5tOTcrlwQ.html

Workers need to realise they are in an abusive relationship with capital. It ticks all the boxes. Capital is jealous and possessive of you. It tries to control you by being very bossy and demanding. It tries to isolate you (just take a look around your office. Are you in an enclosed cubical cut off from human contact but vulnerable to a come-from-behind random inspection attack from a suiperior?). Capital is violent on a scale that communism never was or could be (roughly 20 million deaths each year from relatively inexpensive problems (fresh water access, malnutrition, vaccinations. Problems that aren't solved because there's not a buck to be made in solving them and lots to be lost by solving them). Capitalism pressures people into submitting to sexual activities they are not comfortable with. It blames its victims for the abuse it dishes out. Its history of relationships gone sour is well documented. It take s a little bit of truth about its enemies and exaggerates them out of all proportions, spreading it to anyone who'll listen (many of whom exhibit Stockholm Syndrome behaviours). Capital keeps track of your time, intruding repeatedly on your need for personal space. It demands you keep feeding it while it monopolises your time and attention in inane, unimportant busy work to keep you from examining its effects on you and your local community. It controls all your finances and forces you to account for what you spend. Capital is involved with 7 billion other partners, each valued according to what it can take from each. Remember, this relationship cannot be changed from one side. By staying, you are condoning and enabling the abuse - and helping capitalism stay sick. If capitalism is unwilling to get help, the only safe course of action is to totally remove yourself from the situation.

Capital is just savings. Without savings you have to investment and with no investment you have no future.

alan jenkins Capital is just a means of control. That is all.

alan jenkins Furthermore, capital is not savings. Capital is debt, someone else's debt issued by a bank when they loan money. That's how capital is created in the economy. That's why the level of debt MUST go up in a growth economy. If it goes down the money supply shrinks.

It's not helpful by applying anthropomorphic qualities to capital. Listen to what Dr. Blyth said in this lecture. Capital (in this lecture, corporations) is not a person. It doesn't care. It exists to maximize profit. It's not out to do harm, it just doesn't care while pursuing its interest. As it should. That is its job and main purpose. Blaming capital for this is like blaming lions for eating zebras. What is wrong is when the park rangers started shooting the zebras to feed and make the lions grew fat and have an easier time. The park rangers are supposed to keep the balance to make sure the lions are fed but the zebras also thrive. Right now we have a bunch of super fat lions and a small herd of skinny zebras because the lions are giving the fattened park rangers extra meat from the zebras. The ecosystem won't be able to keep this up. The problem with communism is thinking there is an alternative to this nature. That capital can be replaced. It can't. Because any capital that is not solely geared with purpose to maximize profits will fail against the ones that do. It's like making a race car that also must carry multiple people in comfort. It will always loose against a single seat race car designed for speed. So we designed an overseeing body to make sure the race car does not plow into a crowd of us. That body is the one failing. Communism cannot work in an environment of competition. It could only work if it is applied globally and willingly. And that is impossible unless there is no longer a need for finite resources (like, say, in Star Trek's society, which lacks nothing so much that they don't even have a currency).

He would talk about nothing but himself.

Who cares if its this fun

I've NEVER seen him do that...Economics, yes...Himself, no

He used to be a practicing comedian. If you learn anything doing that, it's how to make entertaining conversation.

yep!

What the fuck are you attempting to say?

Rick O'Brien they don't have much quid

many

@@kamalnoor5611 - 'They've got a few quid' is an understatement for 'They're absolutely loaded'(financially well-off)

because the levels were set too low

If you download and run VLC Player and then choose Media > Open Network Stream and then paste the address of this page in you can increase the volume to 200%.

Here's the link of this same talk with fixed sound: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Wu5tOTcrlwQ.html

But if enough people turn out like him, then they pay for the ones who do not become ivy league profs. Similar thing with immigrants, if you set up and equitable system, most of them pay for the initial help they got after a decade or so. And I'm not even touching upon the intangible effects of welfare. I think it was David Graeber who mentioned that during the big boom of rock n roll in England most of the now legendary bands were on welfare. They didn't care about survival, only cared for creating their music. How many Beethovens or Einsteins are wasting their lives working in some office doing some bullshit job like marketing instead of pushing us forward? How many potential Einsteins will never amount to anything because they have to bust their bodies 18 hours per day in Walmart jobs to scrape for survival?

No, that's not true. The modern kitchen Design is based on the Frankfurter Kitchen, this was invented by Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky in 1926.

+ Daniel Neuwirth Happy to say that this is one of those instances in which both claims seems to be true. A little search on wikipedia on fitted kitchens helped, but it confirmed my suspicion that the Frankfurter Kitchen was indeed the inspiration for the modern fitted kitchen but that what the SIS did was refine the idea to make it more user friendly. Both then are refinements of kitchens but one is a subsequent refinement of a refinement, and both laid the foundations for more subsequent refinements.

+ David Westernall Wow, what did Sweden ever do to you? Makes me think that whatever education you received have failed you, Swedish or otherwise, as some basic reading comprehension should have been applied but apparently wasn't. No one claimed that the SIS invented the kitchen, or even the modern kitchen, but what it did was make refinements on a previous design, like Ericsson with the telephone. Since I have no idea which country your from I can't slam it for being insignificant, but since all countries essentially have little impact upon the universe, consider yourself slammed, on a cosmic scale.

Westernall is just a fucking failure from a failing WASP encampment. Yet another mass produced gullible cowardly racist dunce.

Didn't know there was this many kitchen historians on an economics video... wow

Nokia had a touch screen prototype before the iPhone but they failed to realise the potential. Everything in the iPhone had existing technology.

metacarpitan buying your own stock creates that stock price to rise which is used to measure the value of the company...executive compensation is tied to the stock price :)

Borrow money at almost 0% interest, stock price $50 a share,buy a million shares,this has a positive effect on stock price,market rate becomes $60,sell stock and make $10 million dollars,it's actually a form of insider trading by stock price manipulation.

Well, essentially that's what everyone else does, why should academics be any different? The only thing separating an academic from anyone else is a degree. Its not a separation between those who are interesting and those who are not.

You have missed the forest by looking at the tree. The ''prestigious institutions'' validate (convince) ''academics'' through inflated status and wages that when they are speaking down every day with every lecture ''endlessly about nothing'' (long winded Ivy League blowhard) to the children of the elites who need to get their '' Ivy League'' ticket punched. Do you believe that suddenly, In front of an audience with mike in hand and video on they will deviate from that behavior that has been so reinforced and rewarded?

"The plebs" as you call them, used to be known as the proletariat. They are in an abusive relationship with capital. Capital tells them that experts and intellectuals that try to break them up will lead to mass murder and the loss of their freedom, freedoms that they only have because capital has decided they're permissible. This is how it gets entire populations into a kind of Stockholm Syndrome effect. Convincing low cognitive people that leaving their abusive partner while providing no shelter for them is better than staying and suffering the abuse is hard enough. Try doing it when they're surrounded with imagery that makes them feel ugly and that everybody else is having a great time and the reason its not them is their fault. See how far it gets you.

Well we all know how abusive relationships turn out. Eventually something gives. My only worry is that there are nukes now.

Tom J And a super entitled rich kid who has 4am Twitter brain farts and no other relationships other than direct family, business associates, and banksters, who clearly has never negotiated a complex deal in his life, has the capacity to unleash Armageddon without needing to consult anyone first? Yeah, me too. Maybe we should have dismantled the military industrial complex when the Soviet Union fell. I know, taking rich kids toys away from them is a bridge too far. Best just to go back to your bullshit job and try not to think about it...

he was only speaking figuratively when he mentioned SJ he meant Apple in general - and the point he was making wasn't to criticize Apple. He what he was saying was this: 1. The contemporary narrative from politicians is "Public Spending = terrible wasteful evil" If that's really true, then how come all it took was a canny entrepreneur with an eye for design to take those government funded technologies and turn it into something truly wonderful that has changed the world in terms of how we communicate 2. If we (taxpayers) paid for the basic technologies that made it run, where's our stake in the equity?

pcuimac That was a load of lies you fucking ignorant fanboi scumbag.

The point is that the money should go around in the economy of the population. The workers produce the things and services that we need and are consumed by the workers. That creates a stable economy. Leeching money out of that system and putting it into a system that doesn't actually produce physical things, now what does that lead to? We have built a system that is in all practicallity is severed from the real economy in terms of productivity and responsibillity, and still influence the returns of the workers productivity.

Emil you're just a bit of a fucking dunce with a head full of bullshit. Fucktard.

Seán, I surrender your arguments persuaded me to recant :))

Racism gets 2 serious mentions and 1 joke. once at around 16:55 where it's dismissed as having any meaningful relevance Once more at around 54:20 where it's just a throwaway joke Once again at around 1:04:20 where it's dismissed as having any meaningful relevance I've seen a few of Bylth's vids and that's pretty much his narrative - yes there is racism (like we didn't know that) but no it's not informative in terms of why populist movements are gaining traction Have you got any other time codes that show a self-absorbed obsession with racism or is this all in your head?

I don't dispute you account of the times he points to racism. Not sure which videos you may have seen but I have seen a few on youtube and other places and he can't have a discussion without calling person racists that are outside the liberals. I'm not suggesting that he says it constantly but he can't have a conversation without labeling non-lefties as racists. I consider the race card as an overplayed item by lefties that have weak arguments.

Leaving out race in a discussion about American Economics would be a silly proposition don't you think? Also, is it possible you're simply focusing on the times when race is mentioned rather than all the other moments when it's not. Also he's actually far more graceful to people who voted for Trump than most others who critique the system, he seems to believe and mentions it quite often, that there is a small racist component for those who elected Trump but he doesn't believe it be the driving factor.

Liberals see everyone as some sort of group or victim class instead of seeing them as being Americans. That's why they have been losing elections since 2000. The only real exception to democrat losses was 0bama but that is just another example of democrats voting based on "race." The country needs to move on from racism but the left wants to roll around in it and make false claims and demonize people. The "racist" claim is now what liberals say when they are losing arguments. If you are liberal - don't do that because it reduces your credibility.

TheAtlantaMafia​ Just ignore everything else that was said. Yup, he blamed it all on race! I think it would be silly to talk about American Economics without discussing race but you can choose to ignore race, that's on you. Have a Great day.